|
Post by apophys on Jan 31, 2017 16:37:08 GMT
It has come time to admit I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm refining and I'm only at one tenth of the mass and nowhere near the credit cost either. When it comes to kinetic battles, smaller is better, because your enemy can't shoot you from as far away. My ship is similar in mass & cost to yours. Please try it.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Jan 31, 2017 23:33:27 GMT
The dodging thrusters on the Gladiator have consistently stumped my gunners, even though they get a good head start on shooting. Introducing the ultra-featherweight Pokey Bit, Naked edition. Stripped of frivolous crap, like armor, and relying on its diminutive stature and good acceleration for survival. Weighing in at 469 tons at a paltry sum of 5.11 Mc, this little bugger totes a 1 GW needle gun. Reactor design was borrowed from the Gladiator and resized slightly. Pokey Bit Naked needle gun and Gladiator needle gun. The mid-size range difference lets the Pokey Bit unleash on the Gladiator first, but consistently misses.
ResistojetModule EA 6.00 km/s 50 MW Decane Resistojet 1.18MN UsesCustomName true PowerSupplied_W 5e+007 Propellant Decane CoilComposition Tantalum Hafnium Carbide ChamberLength_m 0.023 CoilRadius_m 0.0001 ThermalRocket ChamberComposition Boron ThroatRadius_m 0.088 ChamberWallThickness_m 0.00039 ChamberContractionRatio 2.8 NozzleExpansionRatio 4.8 NozzleExpansionAngle_degrees 6.7 RegenerativeCooling_Percent 0.163 Injector Composition Calcium PumpRadius_m 0.15 RotationalSpeed_RPM 1000 Gimbal InnerRadius_m 0.22 ArmorComposition Aluminum ArmorThickness_m 0.0001 MomentumWheels Composition Lithium RotationalSpeed_RPM 2300 GimbalAngle_degrees 3.2
ThermoelectricFissionReactorModule EA 1.01 GW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor (Apophysis orig) UsesCustomName true ReactorCoreDimensions_m 0.1 0.14 NuclearReactor Coolant Sodium Moderator Diamond ModeratorMass_kg 3 Fuel U-233 Dioxide FuelMass_kg 9 FuelEnrichment_Percent 0.93 ControlRodComposition U-233 Dioxide ControlRodMass_kg 13 NeutronReflector Boron Nitride ReflectorThickness_m 0.63 AverageNeutronFlux__m2_s 2.2e+020 InnerTurbopump Composition Amorphous Carbon PumpRadius_m 0.8 RotationalSpeed_RPM 540 ThermocoupleInnerDimensions_m 5.2 5.1 Thermocouple PTypeComposition Osmium NTypeComposition Tungsten Length_m 0.001 ThermocoupleExitTemperature_K 2400 OuterCoolant Sodium OuterTurbopump Composition Calcium PumpRadius_m 0.45 RotationalSpeed_RPM 530
PropellantTankModule EA 230 t Decane Tank UsesCustomName true Propellant Decane StructureComposition UHMWPE ReactionMass_kg 2.3e+005 HeightToRadiusRatio 0.69 AdditionalArmorThickness_m 0
SpacerModule EA Mini Penetrator Spacer UsesCustomName true Dimensions_m 0.0001 1
RadiationShieldModule EA Mini Penetrator UsesCustomName true Composition Lithium Dimensions_m 0.001 0.001
CraftBlueprint EA Penetrator Modules EA Mini Penetrator 1 0 null 0 EA Mini Penetrator Spacer 1 -0.5 null 0 Armor
RailgunModule EA 1 GW Needle Gun UsesCustomName true PowerConsumption_W 1e+009 Rails Composition Zirconium Copper Thickness_m 0.64 Length_m 14 BarrelArmorThickness_m 0 Armature Composition Osmium BoreRadius_m 0.00425 Mass_kg 0.001 Tracer null Payload EA Penetrator Loader PowerConsumption_W 2.5e+006 Turret InnerRadius_m 1.5 ArmorComposition Aluminum Zinc Magnesium ArmorThickness_m 0.0001 MomentumWheels Composition Selenium RotationalSpeed_RPM 1900 AttachedAmmoBay Capacity 10000 Stacks 1 TargetsShips true TargetsShots false
CraftBlueprint Pokey Bit Naked Modules 34 Crew Module 2 1 41.662 null 0 6x3 Calcium Radiator 1 4.4169 34 Crew Module 2 1.57 EA 1.01 GW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor (Apophysis orig) 1 27.267 null 0 EA 1 GW Needle Gun 1 34.316 null 4.71 EA 6.00 km/s 50 MW Decane Resistojet 1.18MN 4 0 null 0.78 EA 230 t Decane Tank 1 28.375 null 0 40x20 Amorphous Carbon Radiator 2 19.151 EA 1.01 GW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor (Apophysis orig) 0 Armor
RadiatorModule 40x20 Amorphous Carbon Radiator
UsesCustomName false
Composition Amorphous Carbon
PanelWidth_m 4.8
Height_m 22
Thickness_m 0.001
ArmorThickness_m 0.001
Panels 8
SurfaceFinish null
CrewModule 34 Crew Module 2
UsesCustomName false
CrewCapacity 34
Decks 5
StructureMaterial UHMWPE
ShellThickness_m 0.01
RadiatorModule 6x3 Calcium Radiator
UsesCustomName false
Composition Calcium
PanelWidth_m 0.8
Height_m 3
Thickness_m 0.001
ArmorThickness_m 0.001
Panels 7
SurfaceFinish null
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 1, 2017 4:46:44 GMT
It has come time to admit I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm refining and I'm only at one tenth of the mass and nowhere near the credit cost either. When it comes to kinetic battles, smaller is better, because your enemy can't shoot you from as far away. My ship is similar in mass & cost to yours. Please try it. While smaller is better in regards to kinetic range, a tiny frigate isn't a frigate, it is a corvette or small craft. I recommend a rule update of not less than 8 kt mass. 9 or 10kt would be acceptable minimum tonnages as well. Our designs should be pushing the limits of mass or credit cost and not be drastically short on both. If it means sinking mass and credits on expensive armor, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Feb 1, 2017 4:56:13 GMT
Although wet navy frigates do weigh in around 8kt current-day, I actually still have a hard time seeing 11kt as a "frigate" in CoaDE due to the fact that most of my ships are between 1kt and 2kt. XD
Going vaguely off a wet navy scale though, it sure would be amusing trying to push a 58kt battleship around the solar system.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 1, 2017 7:10:04 GMT
While smaller is better in regards to kinetic range, a tiny frigate isn't a frigate, it is a corvette or small craft. I recommend a rule update of not less than 8 kt mass. 9 or 10kt would be acceptable minimum tonnages as well. Our designs should be pushing the limits of mass or credit cost and not be drastically short on both. If it means sinking mass and credits on expensive armor, so be it. In such case, I'd expect to see some switches to mercury propellant to sink mass. With no other significant change.
|
|
|
Post by mrsandman on Feb 1, 2017 13:40:44 GMT
While smaller is better in regards to kinetic range, a tiny frigate isn't a frigate, it is a corvette or small craft. I recommend a rule update of not less than 8 kt mass. 9 or 10kt would be acceptable minimum tonnages as well. Our designs should be pushing the limits of mass or credit cost and not be drastically short on both. If it means sinking mass and credits on expensive armor, so be it. In such case, I'd expect to see some switches to mercury propellant to sink mass. With no other significant change. Probably, but maybe we can get some kinds of capital ships that resemble capital ships the game shows us (I'm hoping cause I'll lose otherwise :/)
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 1, 2017 14:33:42 GMT
Until we enter 8kt min mass vessels, I suggest we recognise the Gladiator as an interim featherweight champ. The Naked Pokey Bit would defeat it if the gunners could lead their target!
I also think we should consider an all-stock components class, with all other rules the same. Otherwise it devolves into a needlegun race, with the victor firing first.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 1, 2017 14:57:57 GMT
Although wet navy frigates do weigh in around 8kt current-day, I actually still have a hard time seeing 11kt as a "frigate" in CoaDE due to the fact that most of my ships are between 1kt and 2kt. XD Going vaguely off a wet navy scale though, it sure would be amusing trying to push a 58kt battleship around the solar system. Looking at the stock ships - Fleet Carrier: 14.8kt
- Gunship: 9.92kt
- Hiveship: 9.13kt
- Laser Frigate: 7.58kt
- Support Carrier: 4.91kt
- Escort Carrier: 3.87kt
- Corvette: 3.84kt
- Cutter: 3.78kt
- Laser Skiff: 1.70kt
- Patrol Ship: 1.31kt
- Missile Schooner: 1.98kt
- Privateer: 1.04kt
Fleet Carrier is the only one to exceed Frigate mass. Lots of ships around 4kt Corvette/Cutter and Skiff/Ship around 2kt or less. The stock Frigate is 7.58kt, side note my earliest custom ships I called destroyers were 4.5kt and most of my current designs 2.5kt or less. By the thread rules we should be building a better gunship. And that means really good armor.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 1, 2017 15:52:33 GMT
Stock module Frigate maximized to cost. 269Mc so nobody can complain about rounding. CraftBlueprint FA Pursuer Modules 6.18 km/s Methane Gimballed Nuclear Thermal Rocket 4 0 null 0 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 3 -0.5 null 0 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 3 0.5 null 0 30 Crew Module 1 52.375 null 0 300 t Methane Tank 5 0 null 0 300 t Methane Tank 3 1 null 0 13.0 MW 11mm Turreted Railgun 1 59.983 null 4.37 13.0 MW 286mm Turreted Coilgun 1 37.172 null 5.06 13.0 MW 286mm Turreted Coilgun 1 21.539 null 4.71 39.0 MW 8mm Turreted Railgun 1 29.434 null 4.71 39.0 MW 8mm Turreted Railgun 1 52.698 null 4.71 60mm Turreted Cannon 1 68.672 null 4.36 8.00 m Diameter 6.00 cm Radiation Shield 1 20.266 null 0 30 Crew Module 1 39.531 null 0 20x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator 1 26.026 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 1.57 30x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator 1 40.987 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 1.57 30x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator 1 52.141 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 1.57 20x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator 1 75.959 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 1.57 13.0 MW 11mm Turreted Railgun 1 59.97 null 5.07 60mm Turreted Cannon 1 68.428 null 5.07 20x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator 1 9.6977 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 1.57 30x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator 1 62.744 13.5 MW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 1.57 6x3 Aluminum Radiator 1 84.606 30 Crew Module 1.57 6x3 Aluminum Radiator 1 96.562 30 Crew Module 1.57 600 t Methane Drop Tank 1 22.724 null 0.88 14.0 m Diameter 6.00 cm Radiation Shield 1 -0.75 null 0 600 t Methane Drop Tank 1 22.699 null 2.27 600 t Methane Drop Tank 1 75.979 null 2.27 600 t Methane Drop Tank 1 75.954 null 0.87 39.0 MW 8mm Turreted Railgun 1 66.185 null 4.71 39.0 MW 8mm Turreted Railgun 1 32.583 null 4.71 13.0 MW 286mm Turreted Coilgun 1 37.147 null 4.37 Armor ArmorLayers S-Glass Composite 0.0172 0 0 1 1 Boron 0.1 0 0 1 0.5 Aramid Fiber 0.037 1 0 1 1 Boron 0.02 0 0 1 1 Nitrile Rubber 0.045 0 0 1 1
Features multiple redundancies and lots of armor. Wanted to use decane, but there are no stock decane drop tanks.
|
|
golol
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by golol on Feb 1, 2017 17:12:05 GMT
Okay so to clarify: I chose those limits judt because they are the default vesta overkill settings. I don't have a lot of time under the week so I'll only update the OP from time to time. The main idea is that people use a thread to field their ships against eachother and the whole thing is supposed to kind of run by itself. I agree that a size reduction might be smart. But I thought about it for a while and realized that I don't see a reason why mass matters. Our spaceships transport themselves 100% so their mass is irrelevant. Only volume might matter during the construction process but volume is not mass. Why not only have a cost limit? If you guys agree we could settle on that as a rule. I would appreciate some recommendations for the amount(s) here. I think I will also introduce a lighter category soon. Also if I happen to be gone just make a new thread .
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 1, 2017 17:27:20 GMT
So as a prediction, I see this devolving under the current rules into a needlegun development arms race, with the ship thats attached being secondary. Stock modules can't dream of tackling needle ships.
If we stick with stock modules, armor development will be the deciding factor
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 1, 2017 17:28:51 GMT
Okay so to clarify: I chose those limits judt because they are the default vesta overkill settings. It does well against the main fleet, not so well against hordes of drones. First attempt resulted in loss of thrusters to drones and power generation loss due to removal of radiators on the tumbling ship. Second attempt resulted in victory. Only user inputs were issuance of broadside order and jettison of external tanks.
AAR Questions: Could ship attitude integrity be improved through the use of small gimbaled thrusters on the shielded radiator side? What additional measures can be taken to reduce disarming by drone sandblasting?
Addition of resistojet attitude thrusters have resulted in in significant radiator lifetime up to and including total loss of delta v. Uncontrolled spins from major impacts have been greatly mitigated. Drone attacks continue to result in large losses of weapons and fuel tanks. Primary combat degradation continues to be loss of primary weapons. Radial configuration is proposed as solution to weapon loss but is not compatible with directional armoring. Recommendation for improved weapon dispersion across hull including near reactors to match power needs with reactor durability.
|
|
golol
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by golol on Feb 1, 2017 17:32:05 GMT
Oh I didn't mean to say it needs to be able to do Vesta Overkill, those limits were just the first I thought of and I usually used them as the upper limit for ships to be considered theoretically usable in practice.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 1, 2017 17:38:53 GMT
Oh I didn't mean to say it needs to be able to do Vesta Overkill, those limits were just the first I thought of and I usually used them as the upper limit for ships to be considered theoretically usable in practice. You made a good thread bro, don't apologize for your choice of limitations. And the least important part is if you call it a frigate or cruiser or whatever. The name is unimportant.
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 1, 2017 17:54:22 GMT
Okay so to clarify: I chose those limits judt because they are the default vesta overkill settings. I don't have a lot of time under the week so I'll only update the OP from time to time. The main idea is that people use a thread to field their ships against eachother and the whole thing is supposed to kind of run by itself. I agree that a size reduction might be smart. But I thought about it for a while and realized that I don't see a reason why mass matters. Our spaceships transport themselves 100% so their mass is irrelevant. Only volume might matter during the construction process but volume is not mass. Why not only have a cost limit? If you guys agree we could settle on that as a rule. I would appreciate some recommendations for the amount(s) here. I think I will also introduce a lighter category soon. Also if I happen to be gone just make a new thread . By the original stock assumptions, I interpret the mass limit represents the uncosted strategic 'lift' capacity of tankers/boost stages needed to bring the fleet into a system with full fuel reserves. With the potential expansion of combat to multiple systems and the transfers between them, mass limitation becomes redundant and either self mobile or supported fleets could be made within a costed only limitation. There are advantages to small combat vessels boosted into the target system over the much larger fully mobile ship, but there are also downsides to single use droptanks/stages and to large and vulnerable tankers, and protection and recovery of these could be difficult for some strategic situations.
|
|